Monday, October 18, 2010

You may have heard about the MagViz recently. If not, you're probably asking “MagWhat???” Is it the latest infomercial gadget that slices and dices? Will it hook to your trailer hitch? Does it not only weigh the fish, but scale it too? Not quite, but it's just as neato as any infomercial gadget you’ve ever seen.

MagViz was originally being developed for medical screening purposes and during testing, it was later determined that it can detect and differentiate liquid explosives from a sports drink. (See Video)

So the big question is “When will this be available at airports?” Well, as for all technology used by the government, it will take time. It has to be tested and then a schedule has to be created for procurement and deployment to airports. None of this has been done yet, but rest assured, TSA is working with DHS’s S&T as well as the industry to develop technologies that meet our strict detection standards.

In the meantime, the 3-1-1 rules for liquids, gels and aerosols remain in effect. All liquids, except those that are medically exempted must be in 3oz or less containers, in a one quart zip-top bag, one bag per traveler. Speaking of medically exempt liquids and technology, we’re currently using Bottled Liquids Scanners (BLS) to screen sealed containers for a wide range of explosive liquids. The technology is used primarily to test medically exempt liquids brought through checkpoints in quantities larger than three ounces.

You can learn more about the MagViz by reading this post from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Science & Technology Directorate "Snapshots" newsletter.

@ Patrick (BOS TSO): Did you even read the post? To be honest it lead to less delays because we won't have to search so many bags over a simple bottle of water and the dreaded 3(.4)-1-1 policy will be gone for good!

I read the post. It said that at some indefinite time in the future (perhaps after the TSA makes the appropriate sweetheart deals with a well-connected supplier?) the TSA will spend millions of tax dollars deploying another dubious piece of high-tech scenery for their Security Theatre production. But until then, for the foreseeable future, the TSA will continue to enforce the dubious rules about liquids with the same maddening inconsistency, justified by irrefutable research that we have to accept on faith because it's classified.

I think Parkylondon has it right. The TSA's history has been one of continually escalating intrusiveness and hassles, and costly technology that creates more problems than it pretends to solve. Remember the puffer boondoggle? Some of Bob's posts made vague assertions that the Nude-O-Scope would somehow speed up screening. But in practice the scanning process only adds to screening time, even if you don't request the "intimate" alternative.

Do you really believe that "the dreaded 3(.4)-1-1 policy will be gone for good"? What official at Headquarters would risk his job by removing any security measure, especially after all effort to convince us that liquids are a serious threat to aviation? The "layers" of hassle must continually accumulate like waxy yellow buildup. Nobody wants to be blamed for removing anything, even if it's proved worthless.

My guess is that the liquids rule will certainly remain, but the new scanners (if and when they arrive) may do away with the Freedom Baggie. But it seems likely that once the millions of dollars have been spent on the scanners, the high number of false positives will probably mean more passengers getting "bag checks," meaning longer average screening times.

"To be honest it lead to less delays because we won't have to search so many bags over a simple bottle of water and the dreaded 3(.4)-1-1 policy will be gone for good!"

You could get rid of it today, with no impact at all on safety, without spending millions of dollars on yet another scanner, because TSA has time and time again refused to share even a single piece of independent, peer-reviewed research that supports its restrictions on some liquids carried by some people.

You could get rid of it today, with no impact at all on safety, without spending millions of dollars on yet another scanner, because TSA has time and time again refused to share even a single piece of independent, peer-reviewed research that supports its restrictions on some liquids carried by some people.*******************************Heck, forget the independent, peer-reviewed research & just go w/the anecdotal evidence which is the fact that every airliner not flying to/from/within the US manages to stay up in the sky, where it belongs, w/o the falling victim to the TSA's War on Water (same for the Shoe Carnival, btw).

This sounds like a great scanner, perhaps it will allow me to bring a bottle of water on to a plane. It would be even nicer if it sped up the whole security screening process that is such a time consuming nuisance.

I used to fly for business all of the time. Fortunately, my life has changed and I no longer fly for work. Thank goodness. If this screening tool saves me some time and energy, I may consider flying more for personal reasons.

Of course the liquid state of matter is no more dangerous than any other, but the TSA has tried to convince us it is for years, so now they can´t go back against the liquid ban unless they come up with an expensive and intrusive gizmo to "keep us safe from liquids".

But are they even investing in this useless save-face machine? No. the 3-1-1 baggie is too much fun to let go of. Instead, they are investing machines to see us naked, and keep us distracted from all their other silly rules.

No more TSA toys! Can the mission creep, concentrate on guns and real explosives. Without so much mickey mouse around liquids, 3 inch long knives, pliers, cash, drugs and other non-threats the lines will move faster and require fewer staff. Get rid of half of the staff and double the salaries of the rest and then train, weed and repeat until you get a professional workforce.

@Anonymous, October 19, 2010 10:02 AM: How does TSA currently screen all of the bottled liquids that vendors sell in the sterile area?

I can answer that. I once waited 10 minutes at a nearly empty checkpoint while a concessionaire put boxes containing bottled water through the very same x-ray machine used to screen carry-on bags. The officer manning the machine yawned while paying cursory attention to the screen. There was no attempt to hide any of this, or to keep anyone away from the checkpoint. After I completed my screening, I walked over to the concessionaire and confirmed that the bottled water they sold at an extortionate price was the very same brand as those boxes.

I was absolutely incredulous at what was going on in plain view. During my screening, I had a very difficult time keeping my mouth firmly shut and maintaining a humble respectful demeanor. I knew that asking the obvious question would surely earn me unpleasant retaliation that "officially" should never happen.

Sometimes I wonder whether one (classified) goal of the TSA is to train Americans to practice what Orwell called doublethink. They visibly screen concessionaire's overpriced bottles with ordinary x-rays; but we're presumably supposed to ignore that and Believe the TSA's claims that normal screening isn't good enough for bottles we buy outside the airport. TSOs joyfully throw contraband liquids into ordinary garbage cans in full view of passengers; but we're presumably supposed to ignore that and Believe the TSA's claims that liquids are a serious threat to aviation.

Is this an attempt to condition us to doublethink? Is it a deliberate show of utter contempt for the public? Or is the TSA's management so intractably arrogant, stupid, and out of touch with reality that they can't understand (or don't care) why people despise their agency?

I can answer that. I once waited 10 minutes at a nearly empty checkpoint while a concessionaire put boxes containing bottled water through the very same x-ray machine used to screen carry-on bags. The officer manning the machine yawned while paying cursory attention to the screen. There was no attempt to hide any of this, or to keep anyone away from the checkpoint. *******************************Have seen the same thing happen myself at many different airports across the country including BOS, SHV, DFW, & MCO (though MCO has a seperate checkpoint down in baggage claim for airport vendors & workers, but the results are the same). Let's not forget, airport workers, TSA staff, & flight crews are also all exempt from the War on Water & Shoe Carnivals; their suitcases & lunch bags go right thru the same x-rays screening ours do. The TSA will tell you, especially w/re: to their staff, that this is ok because none of their staff are getting on planes, but as we all saw w/Wanda Weems, in NJ who came to work & then got onto a flight to Houston (& was only spotted & pulled off the plane thanks to an alert pax who notified PAPD), that's not entirely true, either.

And no, George, the TSA as a whole, I firmly believe, still have no clue as to why so much of the traveling public loathe them.

@txrus: And no, George, the TSA as a whole, I firmly believe, still have no clue as to why so much of the traveling public loathe them.

I think that's probably true of the lower-level TSA employees, particularly the TSOs who interact daily with the public. They probably believe they're doing a good and essential job implementing rules that make sense, and are flummoxed by the ignorance and resentment so many people show them. That's what seems to be reflected in the responses from TSOs in this blog.

But I'm convinced that the bosses behind the locked doors at Headquarters are fully aware of how the public feels about them. That's why they have a Propaganda Department whose main purpose is to defend the agency when an embarrassing "incident" occurs, but which also attempts to influence public opinion with a mixture of fear, condescension, and spin.

What I can't tell is whether those bosses simply don't care that the public loathes their agency, or whether they're actually proud of their power to inspire so much loathing.

The former explanation is plausible because Congress gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want, so they don't have to be accountable to anyone but themselves. They have the same Infallibility on matters of security as the Pope has on matters of Catholic faith, so it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. They have the "robust intelligence" and know best, so listening to anyone else would just be a waste of their time. And most important, they know that "if you want to fly today," there is no choice but to put up with whatever stupid rule and inconsistent whim the TSO commands at that moment.

The latter explanation is plausible because it's inherent to the "security mindset." If the TSA causes that much difficulty for innocent people, they clearly are giving terrorists even more difficulty. So the bosses can point to the loathing with pride, as proof of their agency's effectiveness.

Anon replied"To be honest it lead to less delays because we won't have to search so many bags over a simple bottle of water and the dreaded 3(.4)-1-1 policy will be gone for good!"

You could get rid of it today, with no impact at all on safety, without spending millions of dollars on yet another scanner, because TSA has time and time again refused to share even a single piece of independent, peer-reviewed research that supports its restrictions on some liquids carried by some people.

October 18, 2010 11:38 AM-----------------------------------Where is the independent peer reviewed research that shows that liquids aren't a threat. Every one keeps asking TSA for the opposite. I would have to guess that since no one has bothered to prove the opposite that in an independent peer reviewed research that it can only mean that TSA is telling the truth.

"Where is the independent peer reviewed research that shows that liquids aren't a threat. Every one keeps asking TSA for the opposite. I would have to guess that since no one has bothered to prove the opposite that in an independent peer reviewed research that it can only mean that TSA is telling the truth."

As TSA is the entity claiming that liquids that can destroy an airplane in quantities of 3.5 ounces or greater are rendered ineffectual in quantities of 3.4 ounces or lower, the burden is on TSA to support its policy. But you already know that.

I dream of a day when these machines are being used in the airport so all you people will wake up and drop your silly "TSA has declared war on a whole a state of matter" nonsense.TSA hasn't declared war on a state of matter, nor have they said liquid explosives are "more" dangerous. If you had been paying attention you would have realized what they have repeatedly said is current explosive detection technology is focused on solids. C-4, Semtex, TNT and the like. Unfortunately liquid explosives, PLX, MEKP and the like present a different technical problem to detect. Because the detection technology is lacking (until hopefully a machine like this comes online) liquids are restricted.

Anon againAs TSA is the entity claiming that liquids that can destroy an airplane in quantities of 3.5 ounces or greater are rendered ineffectual in quantities of 3.4 ounces or lower, the burden is on TSA to support its policy. But you already know that.

October 24, 2010 9:29 AM-----------------------------------TSA has already shown the research. You just don't like the agency that perfoprmed those tests. So now it's up to you to prove them wrong

TSM West wrote:Where is the independent peer reviewed research that shows that liquids aren't a threat. Every one keeps asking TSA for the opposite. I would have to guess that since no one has bothered to prove the opposite that in an independent peer reviewed research that it can only mean that TSA is telling the truth.

Intro to Science - you can't prove a negative. You can either prove liquids are a threat or fail to prove liquids are a threat.

Ryan62 wrote:If you had been paying attention you would have realized what they have repeatedly said is current explosive detection technology is focused on solids. C-4, Semtex, TNT and the like.Unfortunately liquid explosives, PLX, MEKP and the like present a different technical problem to detect. Because the detection technology is lacking (until hopefully a machine like this comes online) liquids are restricted.

The flaw in that argument is that those liquids are detectable with explosive detection. The TSA is currently protecting us from an undetectable liquid.

Ayn R Key could you please reference the peer reviewed research that concludes MEKP is detectable using the current ETD equipment in place at the checkpoints?Funny how easy it is to claim TSA has to provide peer reviewed documentation for anything they do, but all the critics can just claim "no they can test for that" and we are supposed to accept them and their "internet expertise" at face value.

If TSA is making a claim that something needs to be done that greatly inconveniences and hassles people for security reasons, then the stronger burden of proof is on THEM to prove that the invasion really is necessary to protect us. Remember, there are court cases that define an administrative search, the kind TSA does, to be limited in scope and as minimally invasive as possible.

While proof from the other side should be provided as well, TSA is under a much greater obligation to prove its assertions because of the effect they have on people every day.

Ok, Ryan62, I'll once again list the full characteristics of the explosive the TSA is protecting us from. It is one of two possible explosives, but so far the TSA has not shown either to exist.

1. Already mixed, insivisible to detection, safe to transport, liquid, cannot be comined from many small bottles into one big bottle.

2. Not mixed yet, key components are invisible to detection, can be mixed using the facilities found on the safe side of an airport terminal.

Every time I point out the missing element in a pro-TSA argument, someone comes along and mentions another element. That's why, unsing only points I've gathered from PRO-TSA arguments, arguments made by people who agree with the rules and the war on water, I've assembled my list of characteristics so that you cannot move the goalposts so easily.

If TSA is making a claim that something needs to be done that greatly inconveniences and hassles people for security reasons, then the stronger burden of proof is on THEM to prove that the invasion really is necessary to protect us. Remember, there are court cases that define an administrative search, the kind TSA does, to be limited in scope and as minimally invasive as possible.

---------------------------------

That statement would have been true in the past. But 9/11 changed everything. In reaction to those horrible events, Congress empowered the TSA to do whatever it wants, however it wants, for whatever reason it wants, or for no reason at all. They have no burden to prove anything, and they certainly have no limits to the scope and intrusiveness of the measures they decide are necessary to protect aviation.

We still have unlimited freedom to walk, ride a bicycle, drive, drive, ride Greyhound, or ride Amtrak. But flying is now a very special privilege, granted or denied at the whim of uniformed officers exclusively to those who accept their authority, or at least acquiesce to it.

Some people think this is just fine, since they believe it keeps them very safe from horrible evil. They're very happy to surrender whatever rights or privacy the TSA demands, because they believe that doing so protects them from terrorism. They'll even defend the TSA from people who disagree, since they don't want to know anything that might diminish the feeling of safety and protection they get when they take off their shoes, separate their 3-1-1 baggie, divest their personal valuables, and step into very safe, very friendly, very reassuring Advanced Imaging Technology machine.

Of course, some people don't buy into any of this. But there's nothing they can do. 9/11 changed everything, and we can no longer afford either cumbersome due process or civil liberties that interfere with the government's continuing efforts to protect us.

Seriously yet another scanner. For goodness sake. For those that fly occasionally I can see that it's better to just submit and hope that the government isn't killing you with dosages of radiation. (Please remember the government has carried out illegal testing of drugs in the past and did indeed kill people). I work in oncology research and have to be in several different cities every week. I have no choice but to fly to provide for my family. I may have to rethink my career of over 15 years if this doesn't change.

Anon has said in repeated and various formats "West quit being lazy and post some information that you found on the Magviz!"... Never fear, here I am Anon, and I have links for you and the rest of the traveling public!

Essentially I love the idea and would welcome the use of this tech to relax or completely do away with the LAG ban, but it is still being worked on and development is a slow process. One thing they need to make certain is that the equipment is safe, and able to function in the checkpoint environs. As I hear more, I will post back some more links!

Any plans to post links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West? While you're at it, can you explain why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy?

Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.

Anon sez - "Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy."

This thread is about Mag-viz, I included the links for info I have. There is still more research to be done on the mag-viz before it would be considered at the checkpoints. Why would I be printing info on LAG in a thread about Mag-viz, that would be off topic.

West, in this post you claimed that TSA has released independent peer-reviewed research supporting its 3.4-1-1 policy. When asked for a link to that research, you knowingly and intentionally posted irrelevant links to information about MagViz. You should post a link to the research you claim exists because it would be the honest thing to do. The fact that you still can't do that, and are now hiding behind laughable concerns about research on the 3.4-1-1 policy in a thread about technology that could change the 3.4-1-1 policy strongly indicates that you can point to no such research, because no such research exists.

Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.

Anon sez – “West, in this post you claimed that TSA has released independent peer-reviewed research supporting its 3.4-1-1 policy. When asked for a link to that research, you knowingly and intentionally posted irrelevant links to information about MagViz. You should post a link to the research you claim exists because it would be the honest thing to do. The fact that you still can't do that, and are now hiding behind laughable concerns about research on the 3.4-1-1 policy in a thread about technology that could change the 3.4-1-1 policy strongly indicates that you can point to no such research, because no such research exists.”

Anon also sez – “Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.”

Anon, you must have me confused with someone else. That is not my comment, and I only indicated I would post on MagViz here.

West, in this post you claimed that TSA has posted independent, peer-reviewed research supporting the 3.4-1-1 policy. Why are you afraid to say where that research is, why are you pretending that posts about MagViz are links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting the 3.4-1-1 policy, and why do you think your little snit is a good idea?

Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.

Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.

Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.

Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.

Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.

Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.

Still waiting for links to that independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy, West, and an explanation for why you think links about MagViz scanners are somehow links to independent, peer-reviewed research supporting TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy.